Morgan v. LCMC Health
2:21-cv-00172
E.D. La.Mar 10, 2022Background
- Morgan, an African American, worked at LCMC Health from Feb 2017 to Aug 1, 2019 and was promoted to Senior Systems Analyst in Feb 2018.
- She alleges repeated race- and disability-related harassment and disparate treatment by supervisor Tonya Miller‑Johnson and coworkers (e.g., comments like “act like a distressed white girl,” coworkers saying “don’t stab me”/“don’t shoot me,” being labeled “going postal”), culminating in discipline and termination on Aug 1, 2019.
- Morgan filed an EEOC charge on Feb 14, 2020 and received a right‑to‑sue letter on Oct 29, 2020.
- She sued on Jan 26, 2021 asserting Title VII and Louisiana Employment Discrimination Law (LEDL) claims and state tort claims for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
- LCMC Health moved under Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss state‑law claims, arguing the LEDL exempts nonprofit employers and the tort claims are time‑barred; the Court granted the motion and dismissed the state‑law claims with prejudice on Mar 10, 2022.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether claims under the Louisiana Employment Discrimination Law are actionable against LCMC Health | Morgan contends the defendant misidentifies its status and that she sued the correct entity "LCMC Health," so LEDL claims should proceed | LCMC Health is a nonprofit corporation (Louisiana Children’s Medical Center d/b/a LCMC Health) and LEDL expressly exempts nonprofits from coverage | Court held LCMC Health is a nonprofit and therefore not an "employer" under LEDL; LEDL claims dismissed |
| Whether Morgan's state tort claims for intentional/negligent infliction of emotional distress are timely (and whether EEOC pendency tolled prescription) | Morgan argues EEOC administrative pendency tolled prescription and she filed within 90 days of her right‑to‑sue, so tort claims are timely | LCMC Health argues tort claims are governed by a one‑year prescriptive period that ran from last act (termination Aug 1, 2019) and the LEDL tolling provision does not apply to independent state tort claims | Court held EEOC‑tolling provision applies only to LEDL causes of action, not state torts; claims were facially prescribed and dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must state a plausible claim to survive Rule 12(b)(6))
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (court need not accept legal conclusions; plausibility standard explained)
- Bustamento v. Tucker, 607 So.2d 532 (La. 1992) (continuing‑tort theory for emotional‑distress claims may delay prescriptive accrual)
- Spott v. Otis Elevator Co., 601 So.2d 1355 (La. 1992) (allocation of burden on prescription when it appears on the face of the pleadings)
- King v. Phelps Dunbar, L.L.P., 743 So.2d 181 (La. 1999) (application of La. C.C. art. 3492 one‑year prescriptive period for delictual actions)
- Gonzalez v. Kay, 577 F.3d 600 (5th Cir. 2009) (courts must accept well‑pled factual allegations as true on Rule 12(b)(6) review)
- Holliday v. Commonwealth Brands, Inc., [citation="483 F. App'x 917"] (5th Cir. 2012) (EEOC charge filing does not toll prescription for state intentional infliction claims)